Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Deception’

DEAR LIBS: While You FAWN Over Hillary’s Abortion BS – Here’s One Big Fact She ‘FORGOT’


waving flagPublished on October 21, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/10/dear-libs-fawn-hillarys-abortion-bs-heres-one-big-fact-forgot/

I AM A PERSON with Poem

Hillary is abortion’s biggest cheerleader. She’ll brag about that fact. She did what even most Liberals will shy from doing. She launched into full-throated defense of what we often call ‘partial birth abortion’.

As Christy Lee Parker of Mad World News points out: The logic in the ‘case’ she presented has some … flaws. (Following block quotes are from that original piece.)

“The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who have, toward the end of their pregnancy, get the worst news one could get that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term …”

frabz-false-45c2c2

deliver-me

IMAGE ADDED BY WHATDIDYOUSAY.ORG

First, late-term abortions are sometimes referred to as post-viability abortions. That’s important because viability means the fetus is able to live outside the womb. So, at any time after 24 weeks gestation, which is considered the “point of viability,” a baby can be delivered to save the mother while also allowing the child a chance to live. During a late-term abortion, the child is still delivered, only it’s delivered dead rather than alive after the infant has been killed.

As a nurse, I want to be absolutely clear: If a mother’s life is in danger at any time after 24 weeks, let alone in the 9th month, the infant can be delivered via C-section to save the mother. The infant is given a chance at life. It does not need to be killed to save the mother. Never in the 9th month would that ever be a thought for most healthcare professionals. That’s not healthcare. That’s murder. But, there’s more.

absurdities

Image Added by WHATDIDYOUSAY.org

As though that wouldn’t be enough to discount her argument for partial-birth abortion by itself.

In fact, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is delivered breech, which is difficult, painful, and puts the mother’s life at risk. So, when you hear that liberal talking point, where they like to ask, “What if the mother finds out that she could die during childbirth?” it’s important to know that a post-viability abortion isn’t going to prevent birth. In fact, birth is in the name — partial birth abortion. Only a c-section would prevent a vaginal birth, and the child doesn’t have to die for that. The child doesn’t have to die at all, and one look at the steps involved in the late-term abortion procedure clearly indicates this.

Did you catch that? Partial birth abortions are RISKIER than c-sections. Why would anyone choose a riskier procedure that results in a dead fetus rather than a safer one that preserves the lives of both? Isn’t it obvious? The GOAL is not the safety or health of the mother. It’s the ending of a life.

Healthcare

Image added by WHATDIDYOUSAY.org

Besides any of these things, there’s the obvious corollary: You really don’t need special laws allowing abortion if your ‘real’ goal is the SAVING of lives. Do you need special laws governing conjoined twins? If the medical team can save both, they will. If only one life can be preserved, they don’t call it euthanasia, even if one life is forfeit. Because the real goal is MAXIMIZING the number of lives saved. There are no laws preventing the saving of maximum numbers of lives. Nor should there be.

Likewise with abortion. If the real goal is to save the MOST lives possible, you never need a law to protect you. If only one life (the child or the mother) can be saved, you still operate under the principle of doing the Maximum Good. Saving the MOST lives possible. This does not fall under same moral categories as a voluntary cessation of life.

Why isit legal

Image added by WHATDIDYOUSAY.org

If you are voluntarily ending a life (as with partial birth abortion) you are NOT saving the most lives possible. It is, in the truest and darkest sense, executing a choice.

Both choice, and executing are intentionally chosen. They are both present.

If the goal were anything short of deliberate ending of human life, C-section would be the obvious default. But “life” is NOT the goal in view here.

hate God

Image added by WHATDIDYOUSAY.org

So you can stop dressing partial birth abortion up as either ‘hard’ or ‘virtuous’. We see it for what it really is: the deliberate choice of someone’s death.

Power Wedgie for All Who Call U.S. a Democracy!


Democracy_Republic_Branco

I’m a huge fan of retired radio talk show host, Neal Boortz. I always loved how he fearlessly defended the Constitution and the principles of America the movie with hyperlinkliberty while unapologetically expressing exactly what was on his mind at any given moment. The “talkmaster”, as he referred to himself, seemed to be an equal opportunity offender and that made his show more edgy and entertaining. I loved it…even on the rare occasions that I was the one he was offending. Boortz still broadcasts a daily rant on his former flagship station, Atlanta’s WSB. So, when his July 3rd rant dealt with the subject of democracy, I thought it was particularly timely considering that it is a term that is constantly thrown around by politicians, pundits and members of the media when referring to the US system of government.

In his rant, Neal Boortz reminds us that “Democracy means majority rule — what the majority wants the majority gets. A constitutional republic operates on the rule of law, not the demands of the mob”. Many would no doubt wonder what is so wrong with a government by majority rule? On the surface, it sounds like a good thing, but as Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” We have a population that is so braindead, (thanks, in part, to the government education system), that many of the average idiots on the street do not even know that Joe Biden is the Vice President. Frankly, that is a fact that I wish I could forget as well, but I digress.

When people are so woefully ignorant, do we really want them in charge of creating policy that affects all of us? Although many consider democracy to be an American ideal, the founding fathers were very clear in their opposition to it, which is why they constructed a system that

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

would protect us from ourselves.

John Adams: Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

James Madison: Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.

John Marshall: Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.

Boortz also poses a hypothetical scenario in which the government seizes all bank accounts over $50,000, and how easy it would be to gain public support for such an act, despite the illegality of it. We have already seen a degree of this example play out. I think we all know this guy:

joe

Tyrant ObamaImmediately after this exchange, Barack Obama’s sycophants sicced all kinds of scrutiny upon this average American Joe who dared to question the anointed one. Not only do we have a right to practice dissent, we have an obligation. Even Hillary Clinton in all of her shrillness, said “We are Americans, and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.” That is probably the only thing that she and I agree upon. The problem is, we have a population that is too lazy and stupid to hold the our leaders accountable for their lawlessness, and the ruling class knows it. We had better start exercising dissent or that is going to be the end of the ballgame.

The difference between a democracy and a republic is not just a matter of semantics. This constitutional republic gives us the right to engage in speech that allows us to offend and to be offended, as speech that is innocuous needs no protection. Although, in this current thinskinned, chip-on-shoulder society, it would seem that even the most benign speech is now considered offensive. Imagine what would have happened to Neal Boortz’s career if the majority had the ability to silence speech that they found outrageous. This constitutional republic gives us the right to assemble in places like Murrieta, California, (where the tyranny of this government is currently on full display), to the point that federal riot police may be released on American citizens in the illegal immigration showdown. Imagine what our country would look like as a democracy with millions of illegals allowed to tip the scales. This constitutional republic gives us the right to bear arms, to protect ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic…including our own government. I hope it does not come to that. These are only a few of the rights that we are guaranteed. Rights are like muscle…use them or lose them. To retain them is going to require much vigilance, but most things that are worth having require effort.

The rule of law is the framework that keeps our freedoms in place. If we start allowing that framework to be torn down beam by beam, even those who have not been paying attention will some day wonder how they ended up buried under the rubble of tyranny. If we allow this great American experiment in liberty to set into the horizon like the sun, the night that follows may be very long and very dark. Are you really prepared for that?

republic

Follow Neal Boortz on Twitter @Talkmaster.

Follow me on Twitter @ThatChristyChic.

kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204Obama tearing up the constitution

 

 

 

 

Cloward Pevin with explanation
Article collective closing

 

 

Texas Doctor Rebels against Obamacare – Calls it Socialism


http://lastresistance.com/4649/texas-doctor-rebels-obamacare-calls-socialism/#KX74U16XZBhy7loW.99

Posted By on Feb 6, 2014

kristin_story_held

Held is an ophthalmologist who has taught at the University of Texas Health Science Center and served as the director of the Ophthalmology Clinic at the Brady Green Community Health Center.  Currently she works in private practice at the Stone Oak Ophthalmology Center in San Antonio.

Like every doctor in private practice, Held contracts with a number of insurance companies to provide covered services to her patients. The contracts specify the extent of covered healthcare the doctor provides and it is a signed contract.  Signed contracts cannot be altered without the agreement of both parties or so Dr. Held thought.  She and her office manager discovered by chance that Aetna had changed the terms of her contract without her knowledge or approval.  When she found out, she was irate and contacted Aetna to terminate her contract with them.  In her letter to Aetna, Held wrote:

“Obamacare, the ‘law of the land,’ contains ever-changing-at-the-whim-of-HHS, politically expedient mandates, rewards, penalties, rules and regulations with which I cannot rationally or morally treat my patients and run a practice, much-less interpret, implement, or comply.”

“Millions of Americans have lost coverage because of the healthcare law and must now shop on a defective, insecure government website and sign up for more expensive policies through Federal and State exchanges.”

“Only by logging in as a prospective patient did my office manager and I discover that Aetna was selling plans for which I am a provider — effectively selling my services without even asking, much less informing me that my services would be sold on such a site, under the auspices of new terms with which I will not comply.”

“It saddens me to think of the decreased access to care from actual physicians and the shockingly increased costs Aetna patients will now experience because of your choice to collude with big government rather than collaborate with patients and physicians.”

Last December, Dr. Held posted the following statement on her blog:

“Obamacare empowers a few political elites, their operatives, and cronies to do whatever they want to the American people on the false promise of access to ‘free’, ‘quality’ ‘medical care’, AKA tyranny-through-medicine. They write and rewrite the deceitfully-passed law for political expediency, power, and money; patients are an afterthought, an annoying impediment to their ultimate goal — socialized medicine, the keystone in the arch of Socialism. … Our current Federal government is the antithesis of all that composes American medicine and the sacred patient-doctor relationship.”

WOW!  Dr. Kristin Held hit the nail on the head with that blog.  I’ve been saying all along that Obamacare has nothing to do with providing healthcare to the American people.  Its sole purpose was to establish a socialist program that commanded the people to bow to tyranny.  Obamacare forces Americans to purchase a product whether or not they want to.  It forces employers to comply with the government dictates and it forces Christians to violate their faith.  All of these add up to one thing – socialism.

Then to top it off, Obama defiantly ignores the US Constitution and makes changes to the congressionally passed law at his slightest whim.  These are the actions of a socialist dictator that has no regard for the nation’s laws or the people.  Obamacare is a major step in gaining control over the American people and Obama is abusing that power as much as he can.

My hat goes off to Dr. Held for her boldness and standing up for American ethics.  Just think what would happen if a million other doctors terminated their contracts with various insurance companies over Obamacare; they could bring the entire Obamacare system crashing down upon itself, and hopefully take Obama and his fellow socialist Democrats with it.

Tag Cloud